About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
1. Too much of it seems like flight of fancy to me. I have not read all the details of every paper, but a lot of the general descriptions of certain experiments have left me feeling like not everything was fully explored before someone pulled a rabbit out of their hat and called it a theory. The nice thing about theories is that they are not yet proven to be laws. So you can still easily enough refute them. And its even easier when its the type of theory that the technology currently doesn't allow you to really either prove or disprove. I know that scientists know more on these subjects than I do.. But the fact that they haven't solidified their theories into laws means that my Laymen opinion or theories on physics is not really any less likely to be right than thiers. Maybe I'm full of hot air, but until someone can prove it or disprove it, I think I'm not.
2. Not so much math, maybe a little in what I understand of science that I've read from books and web sites.. I've done tech support for about 12 years, and photography for the past 4 years. Many of my ideas come from hearing certain theories take what I think of as MAJOR leaps in logic...and maybe even total abandonment of logic and feeling like someone has to say, "Whoa Nelly! Slow down there!" In some cases, whole branches of math have been created and adapted to certain theories...that have no real basis in science. Its like, Great..you made the math make sense and add up for one portion of the phenomenon you were looking at, but what does it mean for everything? There so far hasn't been an answer. Many scientists seem to me to be looking for a unified theory of existance and don't even have enough of an idea about whats going on around them to even worry about an all encompassing theory. To put it bluntly, since you mentioned bridges and engineering.. Its seems like too many of them are trying to build the hugest bridge ever, when they aren't even sure what materials to use, what their stress points are, or how to deal with bridge weather. I'm still trying to find all the right parts, tolerances and establish all the tools and everything I need to figure out how to build that bridge. In essence, I am trying to look at the universe as a machine with parts, and all the parts have to make sense to me before I worry about what they are parts to. The other thing, is that a lot of the theories I've seen have these people building the Golden Gate bridge for a creek that's ten feet across. I'm just looking to build a rope bridge.
If my analogies haven't confused the heck out of you, then I guess you'll gather that in my own way, I'm following the Keep it simple, stupid! Rule when I come up with this stuff. If there are people out there that know more than I do, I hope they can apply that approach and then just back it with more of their knowledge.. But so far, I haven't seen much of that..